Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough.

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.

DerAppie:Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

/don't remember where I read that

That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.

swaxhog:Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough.

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.

If speeding was equivalent to running red lights, every highway in the land would be full of burning wrecks every 100 feet, every day. You ever get out there are see just how many people are really speeding? Speed cameras are a much bigger fail than red light cameras.

We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.

foxyshadis:DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

/don't remember where I read that

That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.

But we just read that even with the overhead of the company there is a very substantial profit to be had. No taxes required, it'll pay for itself.

I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY

Cash grab from who then?!?!Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

swaxhog:Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough.

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.

Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?

It cost $52 million to install, operate, and maintain the cameras over 3 years, and they brought in $85 million last year. Not sure how the costs break down, but I imagine much of it is related to installing new cameras. I wonder how much it costs to run and maintain existing cameras? Overall it sounds like a profitable enterprise. For safety, of course.

LittleSmitty:We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.

I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid

foxyshadis:swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough.

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.

If speeding was equivalent to running red lights, every highway in the land would be full of burning wrecks every 100 feet, every day. You ever get out there are see just how many people are really speeding? Speed cameras are a much bigger fail than red light cameras.

As for burning wrecks every 100 feet. The few times I've been in major U.S. cities I was amazed at the number of "burning wrecks" and overturned vehicles listening to the morning traffic report every morning.

Anyway, my bad I read the headline and still have red light camera on the brain. Now that I rtfa, surprise, surprise, it's costing them more money than it should. They only thing that is really bad imho, is the lower fines like the 1 to 10. That's an unfair cash grab and should be removed. We had an era of "photo radar" here several years ago. It really did slow traffic down but there was a decent threshold not getting a $50 fine for 1 mph over. We also banded together and voted it out!

Dull Cow Eyes:fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.

You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.

Yep. The guy who is weaving in and out of traffic 10 mph over the limit gets the same fine as a guy who is going 56 in a 55 on a gentle downhill grade. Unfortunately, the insurance penalty is probably just as bad. Three years of higher premiums because you didn't ride the brakes on a hill

L'mours:LittleSmitty: We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.

I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid

Actually, I didn't catch the "speed" camera bit (damn cold!), these were redlight cameras. But there are signs indicating the intersection is photo enforced.

All in all, I don't like them (either speed or redlight camera), but it seems to have cut down on running redlights quite a bit, and the net safety effect is positive. And the lack of revenue if it was monetarily motivated makes me smile...

L'mours:I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid

It varies from county to county or town to town here in the states. Where I live there are no signs, you have to find and remember where they are. At my old house there was a camera up the road, but wind storms frequently destroyed it leaving it inopperable for months on end. They'd fix it and within a month is was destroyed by nature again...See, even the earth doesn't like red light cameras.

aba:Yep. The guy who is weaving in and out of traffic 10 mph over the limit gets the same fine as a guy who is going 56 in a 55 on a gentle downhill grade. Unfortunately, the insurance penalty is probably just as bad. Three years of higher premiums because you didn't ride the brakes on a hill

That. There's a spot on my way home from work where on a big downhill grade, the limit changes from 50 to 45, cops sit in a driveway on this hill and wait to get you (you can barley tell they're their, sometimes you can't...). The worst part is that is a 4 line highway and there are 5 speed changes (35-55 in 5 mph increments), and the fastest part of the highway is when it changes to 2 lanes with winding curves.

I almost received a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over the limit once when it was safely required.Cop -- "Do you know how fast you were going?"Me -- "Yes, I was going about 50 in a 45"Cop -- "Why were you going that fast?"Me -- "Well, you fell this 35mph wind blowing?"Cop -- "I do".Me -- "You see, it was also blowing the trailer of that big rig into my lane, and seeing as I was on a bridge and had people behind me, the safest option was to speed and get out of the way." (I was in the slow lane with the trailer whipping into my lane and pushing me into the concrete side barrier next to the lake)Cop -- "Oh. Well I've already radioed in so I have to write a ticked?"Me --"Why's that?"Cop -- "Anytime we radio in a traffic issue to hq we have to. Its our policy."Me -- "Sir, I'm dealing with some ticket problems and if I receive another ticket I'll have my license revoked.Cop -- "I'm just going to write you a no seat belt ticket."Me -- "Are you serious? You see that I'm wearing my belt?"Cop -- "its either that or a speeding ticket. No seat belt ticket won't get your license revoked. Its only $25."Me -- "......."Cop -- "Have a nice day."

If anyone's curious, this happened on Highway 70 on the bridge right past the Express Way going toward Glenwood. Red light camera is the one at the 70\Sunshine 4way next to Lake Hamilton Schools. Speed limit should be 55-70 once you pass Marion Anderson, but its low to generate revenue. There's more bs from people driving the speed limit than speeding in areas where it doesn't need to be low....Like a 4 lane highway with center turning lane. The biggest problem is getting behind the two people driving side by side going 40-45mph in a 50-55 because they saw a cop(or are old)...I've seen a lot of accidents because of the two slow drivers -- causes ass riding and fender benders. Sane speed limits and proper usage of the road's lanes would minimize most accidents. If you're gonna drive slow, keep to the right and stay out of my speed limit driving way.

/No seat belt ticket is $125 now.//Sorry for the WoT, but asinine laws get me thinking.///Yes, I do move to the right lane when I see people driving faster than me coming up from behind.///The weaving in-and-out speeders don't bother me provided they use their damn signals. Let me know you're a weaving idiot and I'll make room for you.

SovietCanuckistan:I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY

Cash grab from who then?!?!Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

SovietCanuckistan:I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY

Cash grab from who then?!?!Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.

You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!

andyfromfl:Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?

The speed limit is a specific number to be attempted to maintain. The actual important part is for everyone to drive at the same speed consistently, and the speed limit is a reasonably high safe speed for the road. Over the limit is dangerous, under is less so, but not safe either.

machoprogrammer:SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY

Cash grab from who then?!?!Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.

You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!

If only there was some democratic way of selecting the folks that run the city.

Or did everyone vote for the guys who would cut taxes without cutting services.

opiumpoopy:machoprogrammer: SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY

Cash grab from who then?!?!Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.

You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!

If only there was some democratic way of selecting the folks that run the city.

Or did everyone vote for the guys who would cut taxes without cutting services.

Let me think where some extra money could come from...

If only the real world were all rainbows and unicorns like how you view it. City officials are typically corrupt as shiat, and the companies that own and operate these machines offer kickbacks to the elected officials in return for allowing use of the cameras.

And I have no problem with increasing taxes if it means less robots issuing tickets in speed traps. Cities typically will reduce the speed limit and make it not obvious, then put these up in order to generate revenue. They also do the same with red light cameras, by decreasing the yellow light time (which increases accidents, but all in the name of $afety).

Basically, if you are forced to pay a fine for an infraction, you should be able to face your accuser. The robot cannot testify, which makes it stupid. You are also assuming that they are always 100% accurate and never record the speed of something else (i.e. another motorist or something else passing by).